Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 18:35:15 +0200 From: "Steve O'Hara-Smith" <steveo@eircom.net> To: David Wolfskill <david@catwhisker.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: symlink(2) [Was: Re: tcsh.cat] Message-ID: <20010615183515.36f81380.steveo@eircom.net> In-Reply-To: <200106151331.f5FDVCo94946@bunrab.catwhisker.org> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0106152249470.84573-100000@besplex.bde.org> <200106151331.f5FDVCo94946@bunrab.catwhisker.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 06:31:12 -0700 (PDT)
David Wolfskill <david@catwhisker.org> wrote:
DW> Indeed: it is my understanding that the "path name" interpretation is
DW> an issue at the time of reference, not (necessarily) the time of
DW> creation. It has, to the best of my knowledge, been valid to create a
DW> symlink prior to a point when its target exists.
It has been on evey platform I have ever used ln -s on.
DW> One may well argue that this is "broken" in some way(s). Still, changing
DW> it at this point could well be considered a POLA violation, at best.
I would argue loud and long that changing that *would* be broken. There
is never a guarantee (or even an implication) that a symlink points to a
valid directory entry (think unmounted filesystems, NFS ...). I find it hard
to imagine why creation time should be special in that regard.
--
Directable Mirrors - A Better Way To Focus The Sun
http://www.best.com/~sohara
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010615183515.36f81380.steveo>